Wisconsin Democrats Take Their Ball and Go AWOL

Maestro

Maestro

The Freeman
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
102
While thousands protested outside the capital building in Madison, Wis., Democratic state senators took their business elsewhere Friday so they wouldn't have to conduct legislative business with the Republican
AdChoices
majority. Knowing that Wisconsin state law mandates a quorum of 20 senators was needed to conduct official business, all 14 Democratic senators went AWOL, most disappearing into neighboring Illinois. That left only 19 Republicans in the state Senate, one shy of being able to actualize legislation.
Click to expand...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7773882/wisconsin_democratic_senators_go_awol.html?cat=8

Democratic senators left to Illinois so that the government could not pass legislation in order to cut budget deficits of 137 million to 6 million. Classy.
 
Are you saying they shouldn't have done that?

Speaking of deficits...how much did that tax break Walker gave rich people as soon as he came in to office add to it?
 
I'm saying that subverting the democratic process because they don't agree with something is disingenuous as best. Walker's decisions are irrelevant to the fact that they left the state rather than cooperate with the system into which they have been elected.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I don't agree with tax cuts when the deficit is so huge, but that's not my point. The people of Wisconsin chose Walker and knew his policies before he was elected.
 
They should do whatever they can to not have it passed. I don't care how democratic something is if it's just flatout wrong.
 
So because you don't disagree with it, you think special exception should be made so they can obstruct the action of the state's governing body? You're arguing a subjective viewpoint is an inherent fact. How childish is that? The quorum does not exist to enable slippery, escapist politicking.

What if the tables were reversed? If Republicans walked out in the midst of a Democratic governor's attempt to pass major fiscal legislation I know this forum would be up in arms screaming bloody murder.
 
If it were to prevent this union bullshit, I'd back them in a second too.
 
Lol, subverting the democratic process? How is this subverting the democratic process? These are senators that have all been democratically elected. And if the people of Wisconsin don't like what they are doing they can voice their concerns in the next election.

That is the very definition of democratic process. Stop using lame right wing talking points that I'm guessing you must of heard on fox news.

Also. Turns out public opinion polls show that the people of Wisconsin are with the democrats on this.
 
Seems like a legit tactic to me. Republicans HAVE done this before, and nobody really gave a shit.
 
If it were to prevent this union bullshit, I'd back them in a second too.
Click to expand...

And if you wanted the law to be passed?

No Limit said:
Lol, subverting the democratic process? How is this subverting the democratic process? These are senators that have all been democratically elected. And if the people of Wisconsin don't like what they are doing they can voice their concerns in the next election.

That is the very definition of democratic process. Stop using lame right wing talking points that I'm guessing you must of heard on fox news.

Also. Turns out public opinion polls show that the people of Wisconsin are with the democrats on this. Citations, citations, citations. Tsk, tsk.
Click to expand...

I know ad hominem is your favorite tactic, but I don't accept it as valid. I never have watched Fox, and as a matter of fact don't watch television at all. Stop trying to use childish bullshit to obscure the argument.

Moving on: leaving the state in order to obstruct the other elected leaders from doing their work is wrong. Making special exception because you agree with them is a double standard.

Your post is curiously lacking in refutation of them leaving the state being wrong. You merely reaffirm my position: if the people don't like it they vote them out next election. For now, forestalling the senate moving forward with such ridiculous tactics is idiotic. Eventually they're going to have to return, and at that time the bill is going to get passed. This is little more than the crudest of filibustering.

the-one-free-man said:
Well, the Republicans haven't exactly been playing fair either.
Click to expand...

It is not very clear what is going on here.

Krynn72 said:
Seems like a legit tactic to me. Republicans HAVE done this before, and nobody really gave a shit.
Click to expand...

Does not make it right. I find it repugnant when elected leaders are too cowardly to face the fact that they are a minority. The tides of change are only forestalled by trying to dodge service.
 
Maestro said:
I know ad hominem is your favorite tactic, but I don't accept it as valid. I never have watched Fox, and as a matter of fact don't watch television at all. Stop trying to use childish bullshit to obscure the argument.

Moving on: leaving the state in order to obstruct the other elected leaders from doing their work is wrong. Making special exception because you agree with them is a double standard.

Your post is curiously lacking in refutation of them leaving the state being wrong. You merely reaffirm my position: if the people don't like it they vote them out next election. For now, forestalling the senate moving forward with such ridiculous tactics is idiotic. Eventually they're going to have to return, and at that time the bill is going to get passed. This is little more than the crudest of filibustering.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem? Dude, you are calling this anti-democratic. What is anti-democratic about elected officials using stall tactics if the rules allow such tactics?

In what way am I making a special exception in this case? Maybe you know my position on this better than I do. But I'm pretty sure I never claimed that an elected official obstructing legislation by following rules which allow them to do this is anti-democratic. Hell, I don't think I ever even suggested it was wrong during the time the republicans were using the filibuster like it was crack.
 
Maestro said:
And if you wanted the law to be passed?
Click to expand...

Please, you can call this my opinion all you want, but the fact is I'm right. I'm also anti-slavery, pro-feedom of religion, and think murder should be illegal. Just opinions. What they're doing to these people isn't right and isn't good for Wisconsin. Making a nice budget with the tiny detail that thousands of people will have their pay cut and, much more importantly, will no longer have any real ability to do anything about it, nor anything else concerning their jobs, is wrong. I do not give a dlying **** what party you work for.
 
Stall tactics are gay, but so long as both parties can use them (and will) then I can't be too upset over it. I'm for reforming the process to disallow tactics like these, and get rid of the retarded filibuster, but when republican media cries foul on something like this when democrats do it, I can't help but get a little spiteful at the hypocrisy.
 
I wouldn't get rid of the filibuster (maybe make it 55 votes but not eliminate it). You may hate it now, but just wait till 2012 when the republicans will probably take the senate and could even take the white house.

The filibuster does have its limits. And the democrats had lots of options to bypass the filibuster if they really wanted to. Bush was able to get quite a few things through the senate despite the filibuster.

The main thing I dislike about it is the very fact that it gives democrats a way to cover their ass when they don't want to pass bills they swear they support.
 
They shouldn't get a paycheck until they are back doing their jobs.
 
The fact you don't like the job they are doing doesn't mean they aren't doing their job. They are.
 
No Limit said:
The fact you don't like the job they are doing doesn't mean they aren't doing their job. They are.
Click to expand...

Exactly, those Democratic Senators were elected too you know, and they obey the will of those for whom they represent. Even in their current capacity they are doing what they can, in what they believe is in the best interest for those in their state who elected them.

This is hardly subverting the 'democratic process' anymore than Republican Senators in the federal government putting anonymous holds on appointees and filibustering legislation for no other reason than to undermine the president.
 
Until those senators return to their state, nothing will be done and no legislation will be actualized. I have a hard time believing that's good for Wisconsin.

And by the way, most people aren't questioning if these particular senators are doing their job. They're questioning if they're doing their job effectively.
 
The Monkey said:
How so? I think the average worker in the US would benefit greatly from more union activity.
Click to expand...
No, that's exactly what I think too.
Shem said:
Until those senators return to their state, nothing will be done and no legislation will be actualized. I have a hard time believing that's good for Wisconsin.

And by the way, most people aren't questioning if these particular senators are doing their job. They're questioning if they're doing their job effectively.
Click to expand...
Well if the alternative is shitty legislation, I don't see how it can be considered bad for Wisconsin at all.

What? That's exactly what people are questioning. They are avoiding enacting legislation, which is their job. The only thing about their tactics that isn't being questioned are their effectiveness. So long as they do this, they will prevent this budget from passing. Eventually, the governor will have to give in to public pressure.
 
Sheepo said:
What? That's exactly what people are questioning. They are avoiding enacting legislation, which is their job. The only thing about their tactics that isn't being questioned are their effectiveness. So long as they do this, they will prevent this budget from passing. Eventually, the governor will have to give in to public pressure.
Click to expand...

What's the point, though? It doesn't seem as if Walker is going to change his mind on the issue, seeing as though he has already said the matter is nonnegotiable. I'd rather get the vote over with than wait for something that's probably not going to happen.
 
I'm willing to wait if there's a chance of success, doesn't matter if it's small. No reason not to try.
 
Sheepo said:
I'm willing to wait if there's a chance of success, doesn't matter if it's small. No reason not to try.
Click to expand...

I like your way of thinking, but Wisconsin is facing a large budget deficit and is in dire need of assistance. If something doesn't happen soon, it's not going to be so good for the state.
 
The Monkey said:
How so? I think the average worker in the US would benefit greatly from more union activity.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about blue collar factory workers were talking public employees that are butthurt because they're obscene benefits might be cut
 
Shem said:
What's the point, though? It doesn't seem as if Walker is going to change his mind on the issue, seeing as though he has already said the matter is nonnegotiable. I'd rather get the vote over with than wait for something that's probably not going to happen.
Click to expand...

The point is not to allow Walker to pass this bill. If Walker declared this issue nonnegotiable why don't democrats have that same right?

Lets remember, this bill has nothing to do with the budget deficit. Instead this bill has everything to do with a republican governor using his political position to destroy opposition to the republican party. It is unions that provide much of the financial opposition to the republicans, Walker is trying to eliminate that opposition using his elected office.

What exactly is wrong with collective bargaining? Especially in a country where the supreme court recently decided that corporations are people? Isn't the ability of people to assemble the very thing this country was founded on? From what I rememeber from my high school history class collective bargaining was always a good thing in our history. Why the sudden change?
 
unozero said:
We aren't talking about blue collar factory workers were talking public employees that are butthurt because they're obscene benefits might be cut
Click to expand...

It's far more to do with collective bargaining than their benefits. Prior to the announced cutting of collective bargaining, the unions had actually made the concession to have those benefits cut for the good of the states budget. When Walker threw in the collective bargaining cut (after being inspired by that lovely Holy Ghost of Reagan and his firing of all the air traffic controllers), thats when shit hit the fan.
 
No Limit said:
Lets remember, this bill has nothing to do with the budget deficit. Instead this bill has everything to do with a republican governor using his political position to destroy opposition to the republican party. It is unions that provide much of the financial opposition to the republicans, Walker is trying to eliminate that opposition using his elected office.
Click to expand...

I would also like to add that the bill gives an exception to the three unions that supported him in his election.

And in another turn of events,

The Republican governor at the centre of the union-busting protests in the US has been embarrassed by a prank call that he believed was from one of his billionaire backers.

On the recording of the call, which has been released online, the Republican governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker tells a caller impersonating one of the rightwing Koch brothers that he is looking forward to flying to California to celebrate with them once the battle with the unions was won, and jokes about taking a baseball bat to slug Democratic leaders.

Walker is under siege in his office in the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin, in a backlash against his proposed legislation to remove unions' right to collective bargaining and cut public sector workers' pay.

Ian Murphy, who calls in pretending to be David Koch, suggests planting troublemakers among the protesters, who have been peaceful through 11 successive days of demonstrations. Walker says he has thought about doing that but decided against.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/24/scott-walker-governer-wisconsin-prank-called
 
I don't care what you guys think, but I do know for a fact that the Democratic Senators that left their state will be arrested for contempt after having been absent for two weeks. It's only a matter of time before they're found and brought back to Wisconsin to vote on the bill. I think we've waited long enough for something to happen, SO LET'S FINISH THIS ALREADY.
 
I don't think so. I've heard you call recall senators after they've served a year in office. The protesters want to recall 7 of the Republican senators in Wisconsin's congress.
 
Actually, you can. There have been eight state governors removed from office in the United States, but they were for serious reasons and a lot of evidence was needed to try them.

The most recent one was Rod Blagojevich, if any of you remember him.
 
Oh I was thinking about whether you could impeach a governor simply because you dont like him. Not the whole corruption deal.
 
Sparta said:
Oh I was thinking about whether you could impeach a governor simply because you dont like him. Not the whole corruption deal.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. In that case, you can't. There would have to be some sort of serious crime committed, like I said before. Right now, Scott Walker has made a lot of people angry, but he hasn't actually done anything yet that would be considered illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top